Lesson Study #1 - The Personality & Divinity of the HOLY SPIRIT

quote:

---

Memory Text: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:19).

One doesn't have to read far in the Bible before one is confronted with the Holy Spirit. Genesis 1:2 reads, "The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters" (NASB); meanwhile, at the other end of the Bible, Revelation 22:17 reads, "And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely."

Of course, between these two texts, throughout the pages of Scripture, the work and ministry of the Holy Spirit are revealed to us. This especially is true in the New Testament, where we are given many insights into the reality, purpose, and function of the Holy Spirit, particularly in regard to the plan of salvation.

This week we'll concentrate on one often misunderstood aspect of the Holy Spirit: His divinity. In other words, the Holy Spirit isn't just some impersonal force that emanates from God. Instead, He is God, one of the three Persons who make up the Godhead of the Christian faith. Let's take a look at this fundamental teaching of the Bible.

---

quote:

---

The second of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church reads, in part: "There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons."—Seventh-day Adventists Believe . . . (2005 ed.), p. 23. In other words, Adventists—along with millions of other Christians—believe in the triune nature of God; that is, there is one God (Deut. 6:4) who exists as three Persons. While that concept itself might not be simple, the biblical evidence for this truth is powerful and compelling. That we can't fully understand something, particularly something about the very nature of God Himself, is hardly reason to reject it (Job 11:7, 1 Cor. 13:12).

---

quote:

---

Genesis 1:26 (New King James Version)

26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all[a] the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

Footnotes:

a. Genesis 1:26 Syriac reads all the wild animals of.

---

quote:

---

Genesis 3:22 (New King James Version)

22 Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”—

Genesis 11:7 (New King James Version)

7 Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.”

Isaiah 6:8 (New King James Version)

8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying:

“ Whom shall I send,
And who will go for Us?”

Then I said, “Here am I! Send me.”

---

quote:

---

John 1:1-3 (New King James Version)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

---

quote:

---

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

---

quote:

---

John 8:58 (New King James Version)

58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

---

quote:

---

Jesus referred to Himself as the I AM, a title reserved for Jehovah God.

Jesus, therefore, is none other than Jehovah God.

---

quote:

---

My Bible says: "Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit snd rule upon his throne, and he shall be a priest upon his throne; and the counsel of peace shall be between them both."
How many sit on the throne? ?

---

Thank you for that emphatic study on the point that Jesus alone shares his Father's throne with him - and there isn't a 3rd or more persons sharing it, and it should be accepted by all Adventists that the Holy Spirit doesn't have a body...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr.Glenn:
Dear Daryl:
My Bible says: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was God."
In this context, the term "the God" in the second sentence denotes a noun. The term "God" in the third sentence denotes a verb.
Furthermore it describes a sequence of events over time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr.Glenn:
Dear Colin:
First event: "In the beginning was the Word"
Second event: "and the Word was with the God"
Third event: "and the Word was God".

---

quote:

---

Most people don't have a problem with the idea of the Father as God. After all, God is who the Father is. Even the idea of Jesus as God, as a fully Divine Being manifest in human form, though somewhat difficult to grasp, is, nevertheless, comprehensible. After all, an all-powerful God should be able to manifest Himself in human flesh if He so chooses to, right?

For many people, however, the concept of the Holy Spirit Himself as God is a much more difficult concept. It's much easier to think of the Holy Spirit not as God Himself but as some sort of impersonal force, some divine energy and power, such as gravity, that comes from God and pervades the world.

Yet, the Bible is clear that the Holy Spirit is Divine; that is, the Holy Spirit, just as the Father and as the Son, is one of the divine Personages of the Godhead.

---

quote:

---

After all, an all-powerful God should be able to manifest Himself in human flesh if He so chooses to, right?

---

is potentially totally inadequate even basically to distinguish between Jesus and God his Father as to who was incarnated. Hopefully Jesus' separate divine existence with his Father is even implicit in the previous sentence!...it is palpably taken for granted.

That's enough for discussion to occupy us for the next three days. I think: the lesson material for Tuesday and Wednesday only really repeats today's points. But feel free, if you wish, of course.

quote:

---

If a person does not accept that the Holy Spirit is "God the Holy Spirit" and another God separate from the Father, is he guilty of blasphemy?

---

quote:

---

It [the Bible] does not say that a unity of three co-eternal persons only hath immortality

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr.Glenn:
Dear Colin:
The author of today's sabbath school lesson is trying to infuse in the minds of the readers that the Holy Spirit of God is himself God separate and distinct from the only true God who is the Father and (as I interpret the last paragraph) the author is implying that if a person does not accept the doctrine that the Holy Spirit of God is himself God separate and distinct from the only true God who is the Father then that person is guilty of blasphemy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosangela

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr. Glenn

It [the Bible] does not say that a unity of three co-eternal persons only hath immortality

---

The Bible says that Christ and the Spirit are also eternal, so we have three co-eternal persons:

---

quote:

---

Rosangela, Dr. Glenn is showing the lesson's error first in "a unity" of divine nature composed of three divine persons - i.e. divine nature is three persons, which is dead wrong. Rather, three persons possess divine nature.

---

quote:

---

Furthermore, the Father "only hath immortality"

---

quote:

---

making the Spirit and the Son exactly like the Father as "God himself" when they most definitely are not while both being divine: that is what is objected to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Ewall:
What does being God mean? What does being divine mean?

Jesus is said to be Jehovah, the self-existent One. Yet God alone has immortality. So how is Jesus self-existent without having immortality in Himself?

---

Being "God" is what the Father does: Monday's section of the lesson has "God is who the Father is". "God" in Scripture is both a personal reference to God the Father (like shorthand) and its primary meaning. Being divine is generic for the three persons of the Godhead.

As for Jesus being the I AM but God alone having immortality, Jn 5:26 explains the link: Jesus is God's only begotten Son. How, when and where is not revealed but between their persons is one divine nature, and the Spirit of God is the Spirit in all the fulness of the Godhead - or divine nature.

The Word of God is the Wisdom of God and has many other characteristic titles... There is no beginning to the Word's existence, since the Father's expression is his Word; yet, the Son of God is begotten of the Father. The 'unique' sonship argument is flawed in that the Greek allows begotten for humans and unique for both them and inanimate objects.

The Godhead is primarily holiness, agape, mercy, justice and goodness, before listing the fruits of the Spirit . The intellectual descriptions of eternal self-existence, all-knowing, all powerful, and present everywhere must not have the priority of definition, nor do they primarily designate what make Father, Son and Holy Spirit divine. When there is imbalance here, understanding is potentially distorted.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosangela:

quote:

---

Rosangela, Dr. Glenn is showing the lesson's error first in "a unity" of divine nature composed of three divine persons - i.e. divine nature is three persons, which is dead wrong. Rather, three persons possess divine nature.

---

The lesson doesn’t say “a unity of divine nature” – these are your words, and I agree that they do not make much sense. The lesson says “a unity of three co-eternal persons”. The concept of “unity” is taken from Jesus’ own words in John 10:30 and 17:21.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Furthermore, the Father "only hath immortality"

---

He who is said to only have immortality is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, a title which is applied to the Lord Jesus Christ (Rev. 17:14; 19:16). Besides, Ellen White says that “Christ only has immortality” (RH, July 10, 1900).

---

quote:

---

14that thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukable until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ,
15which He in His times shall show -- He who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
16who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto, whom no man hath seen nor can see, to whom be honor and power everlasting. Amen.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

making the Spirit and the Son exactly like the Father as "God himself" when they most definitely are not while both being divine: that is what is objected to.

---

Jesus is never called “divine” in the Bible, but He most definitely is called God.
Furthernore, Ellen White says that He is “God essentially, and in the highest sense” (RH, April 5, 1906).
Therefore, I don’t understand your objection to His being referred to as “God himself”.
As to the Holy Spirit being God, this is implied in Matthew 12:31, 32, which is the argument of the lesson. How is it that a sin against God can be forgiven but a sin against the Holy Spirit can’t? Would it make any sense to say that a sin against God can be forgiven but a sin against the angels can’t? No. Why? Because the angels are inferior to God. Christ’s argument only makes sense if the Holy Spirit is equal to God.

---

quote:

---

There is no beginning to the Word's existence, since the Father's expression is his Word; yet, the Son of God is begotten of the Father.

---

quote:

---

The 'unique' sonship argument is flawed in that the Greek allows begotten for humans and unique for both them and inanimate objects.

---

quote:

---

There is no beginning to the Word's existence, since the Father's expression is his Word; yet, the Son of God is begotten of the Father.

---

quote:

---

Obviously Jesus is divine and has immortality, but Scripture is simply clear that he has that from his Father. Jn 5:26 for starters

---

quote:

---

John 1:1 has Jesus, the Word, described as divine, not called divine, and not called God, which the Father is called in that verse.

---

quote:

---

So if the Holy Spirit is a third God as distinguished from "God the Father" and "God the Son", can I pray to the Holy Spirit and go directly to "God the Holy Spirit" without a mediator and have my sins forgiven? If "God the Holy Spirit" is fully God in the sense that "God the Father" is fully God, he should be able to forgive my sins shouldn't he?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr.Glenn:
Sorry, I meant to say Colin do you have any other scriptures to show that the correct translation of "monogenes" should be "begotten"?

---

quote:

---

Traditionally, the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son was supported by an appeal to the five Johannine texts in which Christ is identified as monogenes (Jn 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; I Jn 4:9). As early as Jerome's Vulgate, this word was understood in the sense of "only begotten" (unigenitus), and the tradition was continued by the Authorized Version. However, most scholars of this century reject this understanding and believe, instead, that the idea behind the word is more along the lines of "only" (RSV) or "one and only" (NIV) [3]. One of the main arguments is that the -genes suffix is related to the verb ginomai rather than gennao, thus acquiring the meaning "category" or "genus."

Unfortunately, this argument requires a selective reading of the evidence. It ignores the wealth of lexemes [i.e. words] that have the -genes suffix. After searching Thesaurus Linguae Graecae on CD-ROM (a comprehensive collection of all extant Greek literature up to the 6th century AD), my estimate is that there are approximately 120 such words in the Greek vocabulary. Of these, 30% are not listed in Liddell and Scott [a pro-'begotten' book], but the lexicon's glosses of 55% contain such words as "born" and "produced." For example, neogenes is glossed as "newly produced," and theogenes, "born of God." A mere 11% involve meanings related to "kind" (e.g., homogenes means "of the same genus"), while the remainder of usages have miscellaneous meanings. The sheer preponderance of the evidence would indicate that monogenes in the Johannine literature could very well mean "only begotten." At least, it cannot be ruled out on the basis of etymology [i.e. genuine or literal sense of a word]. [4] Footnote[4]: Those who use etymological considerations to support their revisionist exegesis would do well to remember that arguments from usage are far more relevant than arguments from etymology. James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961). A comprehensive study of the usage of monogenes supports the traditional translation. John V. Dahms, "The Johannine Use of Monogenes Reconsidered," New Testament Studies 29 (1983) 222-32.

---

quote:

---

Colin,

quote:

---

There is no beginning to the Word's existence, since the Father's expression is his Word; yet, the Son of God is begotten of the Father.

---

But the same can be said of the Son of God, that is, that He has no beginning:

“Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life -- LIKE THE SON OF GOD” (Hebrews 7:3)

Besides, “children derive life and being from their parents” (ST, September 10, 1894 par. 5), but “in Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived” (DA 530).

---

quote:

---

Dear Tom:
You state: "This is not sound logic. Let's say "monogenes" may be translated "unique" or "begotten". "Unique" may apply to either animals or humans whereas "begot" can be applied to only humans.
If one uses the word "unique", then one, like Tom, can say that the SON was not the literal divine Son of God before he was born of Mary but was merely one of the three divine beings who was playing a role in the plan of salvation. If one uses the word "begotten" then one, like Colin, can say that the SON was the literal divine Son of God before he was born of Mary and thus was not playing a role in the plan of salvation.
Tom, do you have any scripture to back up your position? In other words do you have other scripture besides the verses referred to in order to back up that the correct translation is "unique"?

---

quote:

---

That DA 530 sentence is taken out of context if used as you have - our scholars led in that example, so this is nothing against you but against bad, very bad scholarship presented to us to use. She wasn't addressing Jesus' divinity and his begotten Sonship in eternity - which she completely taught: she was addressing his gift to us of eternal life since he has divine life of his own, being divine.

---

quote:

---

1 Tim 6:14-16 certainly mentions both Christ and the Father, but v.15&16 are patently about the Father.

---

quote:

---

What about Heb 1:1-5 and 8T 268? It really is very simple: the Son of God was literally such before Bethlehem.

---

quote:

---

As for Jn 1:1, it is idiomatically "the Word was God", but literally it is "the Word was divine": the grammar gives that "God" a qualitative meaning, not an absolute meaning, while "with God" has an absolute meaning. Just taking both angles.

---

quote:

---

Ellen White is not addressing Christ’s earthly life, which was derived from Mary, so “underived” here refers to what, if not to His pre-existence? If He had been literally begotten by God, His life would obviously have been derived from God, no matter how you slice it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill Wennell:
http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/Christ.htm

http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/trinitydoc%20among%20sda.pdf

http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/Doctrine%20of%20the%20Trinity.pdf

http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/trinscript.pdf

---

quote:

---

Errr, she speaks directly to his divine life, doesn't she, which is gifted to believers? Pre-existence isn't her point, though it is implicit in his divinity.

---

quote:

---

How can the Son be the express image of his Father's person if there wasn't a physical derivation of some sort?

---

quote:

---

The divine nature is underivable, given there is only one true Godhead.

---

quote:

---

Whether or not the Son's begotten Sonship implies a beginning, his divinity in the Gospels isn't based on an eternal existence but on his Sonship - which is the entire theme of his identity in John's Gospel. Jesus' divinity doesn't rest in the Bible on his co-existence with God (I disbelieve the co-existence theory) but on his Sonship 'of God'.

---

quote:

---

Heb 1:1-5 do indeed distinguish their divine personalities, but the SOP comments include a pre-Bethlehem mandate of authority for God's literal Son: the counsels of God are opened to his Son.

---

quote:

---

The confirmation of Jesus' Sonship by his resurrection can surely only be because he was the only begotten God and Son of the Eternal God before he became human.

---

quote:

---

My Greek is only informed enough to know that in Jn 1:1 "the Word was with God" has "the" attached to "God", while "the Word was God" doesn't have a "the": that's Greek grammar for an absolute meaning with "the" and a qualitative, descriptive meaning without "the".

---

quote:

---

I don’t know which Greek grammar would say that, since the absence or presence of the article never determines a difference in the meaning of the word. All the important words of the Bible are sometimes presented with the article, sometimes without: God, faith, love, gospel, etc.
Just in the first chapter of John we have four examples of the word “God” without the article:
John 1:6 – "There was a man sent from God" – no article
John 1:12 – "he gave power to become children of God" – no article
John 1:13 – "who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" – no article
John 1:18 – "No one has ever seen God" – no article

---

quote:

---

"The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions "with an anarthrous [no article] predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning."

---

quote:

---

"The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions "with an anarthrous [no article] predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning."

---

quote:

---

In terms of the analysis that we have proposed, a recognition of the qualitative significance of theos would remove some ambiguity in his interpretation by differentiating between theos, as the nature that the Logos shared with God, and ho theos as the "person" to whom the Logos stood in relation. Only when this distinction is clear can we say of the Logos that "he was God."

---

quote:

---

1. ho logos en ho theos: The logos (the Word) and theos (God) are completely equivalent and interchangeable - they are identically the same. This is how most people mistakenly read the verse. If this had been what John had written, then we would not believe in the Trinity today. Rather, we would be monarchists.
2. theos en ho logos: This is what John actually wrote. This differs from (1) in that it makes the word theios qualitative. It's meaning is something like the New English Bible's translation: "What the Word was, God was." Moffat, Goodspeed, and other scholars have translated the qualitative word "God" using words like "divine" or "deity" but what they are trying to express with these words is prone to misunderstanding. Their meaning is in keeping with the NEB, that "divine" or "deity" refers to the unique divinity of the one True God.
3. ho logos theos en: This would have the same meaning but a different emphasis than the previous list item. This version would put the emphasis on the Word rather than on the nature he possessed.
4. ho logos hen theos: This would mean that the word was a divine being of some kind - perhaps like an angel.
5. ho logos hen theios: Similar in meaning to the last clause. Uses an adjective theios rather than a noun theos.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr.Glenn:
Dear Rosangela:
You state "I agree that divine nature is underivable".
We de[p]rive "divine nature" or " the godhead" from the Father and the Son. See 2 Peter 1:4
Here the greek word for "godhead" is translated "divine nature".

---

I hope you know you're pulling someone's leg with this one!

We "partake" of divine nature by the Spirit in all the fulness of the Godhead dwelling in us, not by being 'begotten children of God' - we are after all "adopted" children: we derive nothing of the divine nature, but the righteousness of God wrought in Jesus' human character (the Father's character is strictly holy) is imparted to us.

It should be generally agreed that "Godhead" is "divine nature", hopefully.

quote:

---

quote:

---

How can the Son be the express image of his Father's person if there wasn't a physical derivation of some sort?

---

Christ’s being the express image of His Father is not related to physical similarity, but to similarity of character. What does this have to do with physical derivation?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

The divine nature is underivable, given there is only one true Godhead.

---

I agree that the divine nature is underivable, but you have just contradicted this by saying that there was a physical derivation. “Underived” life means a life not derived from any other being.

---

quote:

---

I think His divinity is based on His equality with God. He is co-equal with God. But if there is one aspect in which God and Christ aren’t equal – that is, in their eternity – then there is no equality.

---

quote:

---

Granted the Greek speaks of character, but SOP includes appearance in that express image. In fact she says that they are so alike as to be little short of identical.

---

quote:

---

Divine life isn't sourced in the Father and Son's persons or bodies but in their nature: their individual possession of the original Godhead means that each has self-originated - "aseity" in theological speak - divine life, in their divine essence.

---

quote:

---

co-equality was in their possession of diety and their holy attitude, as well as the authority and creatorship which came with it.

---

quote:

---

Heb 1:1-5&6 don't make sense as happening only after Jesus' ascension: the angels worshipped him before his death on the cross, while he was on earth. v.3b-5 do not follow as the same event after the Ascension: v.4&5 establish the Son's diety as P&P chapter 1 explains it happening before Lucifer rebelled. That Sonship was confirmed by his resurrection and reinvestiture in heaven with all power and authority, yes, but EGW is crystal clear that v.4 happened in the eons of the past, and not post-Calvary: the Son of God inherited God's name!!! In Hebrews it is stated poetically in contrast to the angels, but it was not 'historical', like after Christ's ascension.

---

quote:

---

John’s meaning is that Jesus is God in the same sense that the Father is, and in every sense that the Father is.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Divine life isn't sourced in the Father and Son's persons or bodies but in their nature: their individual possession of the original Godhead means that each has self-originated - "aseity" in theological speak - divine life, in their divine essence.

---

Colin, if Ellen White had used the term “divine life” you might still have a point, but she used the term “underived” life, and a being who is originated by another being cannot have underived life, no matter how you slice it.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

co-equality was in their possession of diety and their holy attitude, as well as the authority and creatorship which came with it.

---

A literal begetting implies a difference in hierarchy and authority which prevents equality.
The Bible is clear that the Son of God, like Melchizedek, has “no beginning of days”. How could He have been literally begotten?

---

quote:

---

Today's question is: "How did Jesus refer to the Spirit?" John 15:26; 16:13, 14.
I believe the answer is: as his agent or representative NOT as his God or as "God the Holy Spirit". Is there any scripture to show that Jesus worshiped the "Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father" as his God separate and distinct from his Father as a person as the only true God?

---

quote:

---

Divine life is underived life.

---

quote:

---

That's what John's Gospel states to be the case

---

quote:

---

You agree that Phil 2:6 expresses a total lack of contention over equality between Jesus and his Father? This is confirmed in P&P as the case before sin entered the universe and to have been the case before creation, while EGW wrote consistently of a family relationship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosangela:
Colin,

quote:

---

That's what John's Gospel states to be the case

---

John really refers to Jesus as monogenes. Even if monogenes means “only begotten”, does this have to be taken literally? Hebrews says that Abraham "offered up his only begotten son" (Heb. 11: 17). Saying that Isaac was literally Abraham’s only-begotten son makes no sense because this is not true, but saying that Isaac was extremely dear and special to Abraham does make sense.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

You agree that Phil 2:6 expresses a total lack of contention over equality between Jesus and his Father? This is confirmed in P&P as the case before sin entered the universe and to have been the case before creation, while EGW wrote consistently of a family relationship.

---

Of course no one in the Godhead would contend for equality, but equality is important for us, because worshiping a lesser god and a higher God would make of us pagan bitheists, not Christian monotheists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by västergötland:
Colin

I wonder, which do you rest your beliefs most upon, the bible or the SDA pioneers views (about the bible)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Colin:
More on the Bible, thanks for asking, but the SDA pioneers' interpretation is better than our theologians' efforts today, so the pioneers get mentioned with the Bible. First the Bible, then our pioneers, then our current theologians.

You don't think our pioneers made more sense on the Bible truths than our theologians, today?

---

quote:

---

I think, who cares what the pioneers thought until we know what the bible teaches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosangela:
To me the problem is not pioneers x modern theologians, but pioneers x Bible (and, in the second place, the SOP).

Acts 17:11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

Light is progressive. Some of the pioneers' views had to be given up (like, for instance, the shut door).

---

quote:

---

Attributes of the Holy Spirit include truth (John 16:13), life (Rom. 8:2), and omnipotence (1 Cor 2:10, 11)—attributes associated with divinity.

Jesus, in Matthew 12:31, 32, says blasphemy spoken against Him can be forgiven but not blasphemy spoken against the Holy Spirit, a concept that doesn't make much sense if the Holy Spirit is anything less than God.[/b]

Matthew 1:20, where Jesus is conceived in the womb of Mary through the Holy Spirit, is also a difficult text to understand if the Holy Spirit were not truly God. (See also Gen. 1:2.)

---

Quote:

---

We really need to keep the role functions of them in mind when we look at each of them. Doing that answers questions that would otherwise not be answered.

---

Quote:

---

Two points about understanding the Holy Spirit where made during the discussion in church.
First, that the descriptions we have is humans trying to explain what is inexplaineble in human languages. "Spirit" is the word used becourse our languages have no other word that would better describe it.
Secoundly that we must be open to the questions becourse if we shy away from hard questions youth and other groups around church will shy away from us. (This was in response to several persons who asked why we where discussing these questions at all)

---

Quote:

---

In regard to the Holy Spirit, he does not have the attribute to forgive sins or does he? We know that the Father can forgive sins and that the Son was given authority to forgive sins. I find no Bible evidence that the Holy Spirit as the third person of the godhead can forgive sins.

---

Quote:

---

If he could then there would be no need for Christ as our mediator? Right? Do we not use the Father as the standard to determine whether the other members are fully God?

---